XL bully ban upheld after campaigners lose Court of Appeal challenge

"From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground."

"Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.Your support makes all the difference."

"Campaigners challenging the controversial ban on XL bully dogs have seen their Court of Appeal bid dismissed, upholding the government's decision to add the breed to the Dangerous Dogs Act. The group Don't Ban Me, Licence Me, and the group's director Sophie Coulthard launched legal action against the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) after owning an XL bully dog without an exemption certificate became a criminal offence in England and Wales in February 2024."

The Independent emphasizes the need for on-the-ground journalism across issues like reproductive rights, climate change, and Big Tech and invites donations to fund reporting without paywalls. The outlet positions itself as trusted across the political spectrum and states that donations keep journalists reporting from both sides. Campaigners opposing the XL bully breed ban lost a Court of Appeal challenge, which upheld the government's decision to add the breed to the Dangerous Dogs Act. Owning an unregistered XL bully became a criminal offence and exemptions require strict measures. Campaigners argued the ban relied on unreliable material and lacked proper impact analysis, and a judge found failures in the public sector equality duty during assessments.

Read at www.independent.co.uk